New Delhi [India], July 10 (ANI): A Delhi court has cancelled the regular bail granted to real estate developer Rahul Chamola, holding that he repeatedly violated the conditions of his bail and failed to comply with judicial directions despite being granted several opportunities. The court also ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) to secure his presence.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ankit Garg of Patiala House Courts allowed an application under Section 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Chamola on December 13, 2023, in an FIR registered at Police Station Naraina. Chamola is associated with Nivas Promoters Private Limited.
The State and the complainant argued that the accused had deliberately and repeatedly violated the express conditions of his bail. The defence, however, contended that Chamola had not breached any bail condition, had joined the investigation whenever required, and that no supervening circumstances existed to warrant cancellation of bail.
After examining the record, the court observed that the accused’s conduct had raised concerns even before the grant of bail. It noted that earlier non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted as he could not be found at the address furnished to the court. The court also recorded that he had changed his residential address without informing the court, resulting in the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
Despite this, the court had granted regular bail on December 13, 2023, subject to stringent conditions, including mandatory physical appearance on every date of hearing and an obligation to notify the court of any change in residence. The court noted that these conditions were imposed after considering the accused’s previous conduct and were not routine in nature.
The order records that thereafter the accused repeatedly sought exemption from personal appearance despite the specific condition requiring his physical presence. On February 8, 2024, the court granted exemption upon payment of ₹5,000 as costs to the complainant while warning that any further default could result in forfeiture of his personal bond. On October 4, 2024, the court found that the costs had not been paid and observed that the accused appeared to be delaying the proceedings. Another opportunity was granted subject to payment of ₹5,000 as costs to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The court further noted that on April 21, 2025, the accused remained absent, leading to issuance of bailable warrants. On May 1, 2025, he was again directed to remain physically present before the court in accordance with the bail conditions.
During the hearing of the cancellation application, the Investigating Officer informed the court that despite repeated efforts, the accused could not be traced. The prosecution also submitted that the accused had violated the bail conditions and that when the Investigating Officer visited the Noida address furnished by him, his wife stated that he was not residing there. The defence maintained that he continued to reside at the same address.
The order further records that on June 2, 2026, the Investigating Officer informed the court that the accused had joined the investigation only partially and had left midway. Later, on July 2, 2026, despite directions to appear physically, he appeared through video conferencing. The Investigating Officer also submitted that the accused had failed to join the investigation despite repeated notices and court directions.
Referring to the sequence of events, the court observed that the defaults were “neither isolated nor technical in nature” and that the accused had consistently disregarded the conditions on which bail had been granted despite repeated indulgence by the court. It further observed that instead of treating bail as a privilege coupled with responsibility, the accused repeatedly violated the condition requiring his physical appearance, compelled the court to resort to coercive measures, repeatedly sought exemptions, failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancy regarding his residential address and continued to disregard court directions.
The court held that persistent and wilful violation of bail conditions and repeated misuse of the concession of bail constitute legally recognised grounds for cancellation. It clarified that it was not reconsidering the merits of the original bail order but was examining only the accused’s conduct after grant of bail.
Holding that Rahul Chamola had wilfully and repeatedly violated the conditions of the bail order dated December 13, 2023, and failed to comply with repeated judicial directions despite several opportunities, the court allowed the application for cancellation of bail. It cancelled the regular bail granted to him, discharged his personal and surety bonds, directed issuance of non-bailable warrants and instructed the Investigating Officer and the SHO concerned to execute the warrants forthwith and file a compliance report within two weeks. (ANI)
The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.
